Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Yixian, May 19, 2015.
Good surprise or bad surprise? How does it compare to the 950/960M everyone was predicting?
Well they said it'd be 80% faster than the 750M. Which means it's pretty comparable to the Maxwell chips.
It was a nasty surprise for me, because AMD chips are known to be inefficient. I'm waiting for another Radeongate to happen on this one.
how's AMD's driver support nowadays? haven't owned a notebook w one in a while. i have a Razer Blade also with a 970m, and i get constant updates from Nvidia. actually just got the update for Witcher 3 support yesterday.
They say 1.5 - 1.7 times (in other words 50-70% performance increase) on the Apple website in games. But who knows how they tested that. I doubt it was under windows with the newest drivers for both.
An 850M is 2 times a 750M.
A 950M or 960M is 2.2-2.5 times a 750m.
AMD's OS X drivers are like NVIDIA drivers for Windows, while NVIDIA drivers for OS X are like AMD drivers on Windows.
I'm really impressed with the performance and compatibility with the "forced" installation of the latest nvidia webdrivers on my Late-2009 Macbook. I'm just experiencing some WebGL crashes when I first open Google Chrome, but don't know if it has something to do with video drivers.
It'll certainly be in OS X. There are some details in the footnote:
Those footnote details are important. I wonder what the actual full res performance differences are.